Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Meeting held with IBA on 5th June 2017, Common Charter of Demands petaining to Bank Pensioners

In
the Meeting held with IBA on 5th June 2017, all the Workmen Unions and
all the Officers Organisations submitted their Common Charter of
Demands.

From the management side IBA submitted the demands of the management.

OFFICERS COD pertaining to Bank Pensioners is furnished here under:PART IV
SUPERANNUATION BENEFITS: The improvements made in the Pension scheme in the areas like updation and
upgradation of the Pension, the rationalization of Dearness Allowance, Family
Pension etc., needs to be implemented in the banking industry as our pension
scheme amply speaks of being in the lines of central govt. pension scheme.
The seventh Pay commission has analysed the issue as given below.
Constitutional Provisions and Judicial Position Article 366(17) of the
Constitution defines pension as: “Pension means a pension, whether
contributory or not, of any kind whatsoever payable to or in respect of any
person, and includes retired pay so payable, a gratuity so payable and any
sum or sums so payable by way of the return, with or without interest thereon
or any other addition thereto, of subscriptions to a Provident Fund.”
Pension has been the subject matter of a number of landmark judgements by
the Supreme Court of India in which its nature, obligations of the government
thereon and the recognition of distinctiveness in categories of pensions and
pensioners has been settled. In its judgment in D.S. Nakara and others Vs
Union of India [AIR 1983 SC 130] the Supreme Court held that a pension
scheme consistent with available resources must provide that a pensioner
would be able to live free from want, with decency, independence and self
respect and standard equivalent at pre-retirement level. It held that pension is
not an ex-gratia payment but payment for past services rendered. At the same
time in Indian Ex-Services League & Others Vs Union of India & Others [(1991)
2 SSC 104] the Supreme Court held that the decision in the Nakara case has to
be read as one of a limited application and its ambit cannot be enlarged to
cover all claims made by the pension retirees or a demand for an identical
amount of pension to every retiree from the same rank irrespective of the date
of retirement, even though the reckonable emoluments for computation of their
pension be different. In the judgement in Vasant Gangaramsachandan Vs
State of Maharashtra & Others [(1996) 10 SSC 148] Supreme Court reiterated
that pension is not a bounty of the State. It is earned by the employee for service
rendered to fall back upon after retirement. It is attached to the office and it
cannot be arbitrarily denied. In the case of petitioners who were retired Railway
employees, covered by or who opted for the Railway Contribution Fund Pension
Scheme, the Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar Vs Union of India and Others
[(1990) 4 SSC 207] averred that it was never held that both the pension retirees
and PF retirees formed a homogenous class and that any further classification
Report of the Seventh CPC 382 Index among them (viz., pension retirees and PF
retirees) would be violative of Article 14. Under the Pension Scheme, the
government's obligation does not begin until the employee retires but it begins on
his/her retirement and then continues till the death of the employee. Thus, on the
retirement of an employee, government's legal obligation under the PF account
ends while under the Pension Scheme it begins. The rules governing the PF and its
49
contribution are entirely different from the rules governing pension. An imaginary
definition of obligation to include all the government retirees in a class was not
decided and could not form the basis for any classification for this case.
th Analysis and Recommendations: The 7 Pay Commission sought the views of
the government in this regard. The Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare
stated that the VI CPC had recommended calculation of Pension Report of the
Seventh CPC recommended pension @ 50 percent of last pay or the average
emoluments (for last 10 months) whichever is more beneficial. The Commission
also recommended delinking of pension from qualifying service of 33 years.
Effectively the dispensation on pension has already been liberalised by the VI
CPC. Further the recommendations of this Commission in relation to pay of both
the civilian and defence forces personnel will lead to a significant increase in the
pay drawn and therefore in the 'last pay drawn'/'reckonable emoluments.'
Therefore the Commission does not recommend any further increase in the rate
of pension and family pension from the existing levels. Quantum of Minimum
Pension should Equal the Minimum Wage. In representations/depositions before
the Commission it has been stated that the existing minimum pension fixed at
Rs.3,500 is low and it has been argued that minimum pension be fixed equal to
minimum pay for sustenance.
The Commission sought the views of the government in this regard. The
Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare stated that as per the orders
issued after V CPC, the minimum pension in the government was Rs. 1,275. The
normal revised consolidated pension of a pre-2006 pensioner is 2.26 of the prerevised
basic pension. The revised minimum pension of Rs. 3,500 is much more
than 2.26 time of the pre-revised pension of Rs. 1,275. Further the
recommendations of this Commission in relation to pay of personnel will lead to a
significant increase in the minimum pay from the existing Rs.7,000 per month to
Rs.18,000 per month. This, based on the computation of pension, will raise
minimum pension from the existing Rs.3,500 to Rs.9,000. The minimum pension
based on the recommendations of this Commission will increase by 2.57 times
over the existing level.
In Civil APPEAL 1123 OF 2015 THE HONOURABLE Supreme Court has clearly
stated that pension is not a bounty, it should be 50% of the pay and there can be no
question of capacity to pay.
Hence we demand revision in pension, family pension and the principle of one
rank one pension. Please note that today many officers salary is less than the
pension of their parents who are Central Govt Pensioners.

GENERAL:
The voluntary retirement provided in the Officers Service Rules should be
incorporated in the Pension rules and they should also be made eligible for
Pension without any discrimination.
Pension scheme should be extended to all those who have been denied earlier on
the basis of the misinterpretation of the understandings reached with IBA in
50
particular those who retired under voluntary retirement scheme as per the
service regulations / resigned after completing 20 years. (Full Pension Eligibility
Period to be made 20 years.:: The full pension eligibility period in Central
Government and RBI / NABARD are now revised to 20 years. However in Banks ,
full pension eligibility period continues to be 33 years. Hence the relevant clauses
in Pension Regulations to be amended to make full pension eligibility period to be
20 years.)
Pension should be revised for retirees in all Banks including SBI alongwith wage
revision as done for retirees from central government.
The officers who joined the bank between 01.11.1993 and 26.01.1996 have to be
covered under the pension regulations.
Provision of additional service as per the Pension Regulations to the extent of 5
years should be extended to each and every retirees in the banking industry.
Those having relaxation of age at the time of recruitment on account of disability
etc., also to be extended additional period of 5 years to his / her service qualifying
for pension.
Also, for Ex-servicemen their past services rendered in the Armed Force should
be added to his / her service for qualifying for pension.
(Counting of Military Service Period of Short Service Commissioned Officer
joining the Bank :
Short Service Commissioned Officer are not drawing any pension for their
services rendered in Military. They are paid gratuity at the time of release from
Military. Such Officers when they join Central Government and Organisations like
RBI/ NABARD are given the option to remit the gratuity received by them to the
Employer Bank / Organisation at the time of joining so that the period of service
rendered in Military is counted towards eligibility of pension in Bank. However
this provision is not available to Short Service Commissioned Officers joining
Public Sector Banks.
Hence we demand that Short Service Commissioned Officers joining PSB may be
allowed to remit the gratuity received by them at the time of release from Military
so that their period of service in Military is counted towards eligibility period for
pension in PSBS. For existing Short Service Commissioned Officers who are
already in the service of the PSBs, may be given a one time option to return the
gratuity received at the time of release with simple interest @ 6 % from the date of
receipt of gratuity till date payment to the Bank for availing inclusion of Military
Service Period toward pension eligibility.)

FAMILY PENSION:
The Family Pension should be on par with the Government and be at 30% of last
drawn pay by the officer across the board to every one. The regular family pension
will be payable till death. Up to the age of 67 years or 10 years after death full
pension.

51
NEW PENSION SCHEME
The employees and officers who joined the banking industry on or after
th 01.04.2010 should be governed by the original pension settlement signed on 29
October 1993 and Gazetted in the year 1995.
The seventh pay commission has recommended as below.
Pension has been one of the key Terms of Reference (TORs) for successive Pay
Commissions. While the VI CPC was the first Pay Commission to have been
constituted after the introduction of the National Pension System (NPS) which
came into effect on 01.01.2004, the VII CPC is the first one to be constituted after
some experience has been gained on this count. Pension Related TOR of the
Commission. The TOR of the present Commission - to examine the principles
which should govern the structure of pension and other retirement benefits,
keeping in view that retirement benefits of all Central Government employees
appointed on and after 01.01.2004 are covered by the National Pension System
(NPS)–limits the mandate of this Commission only to the Old Pension System
(OPS). However, during its interaction with staff associations and other
stakeholders, the Commission received many grievances/suggestions relating to
both the OPS and the NPS. It has also been averred, inter alia, that NPS is proving
to be an impediment in attracting and subsequently retaining the best talent for
the Central Civil Services/All India Services (AIS). In this backdrop, the
Commission decided to address the grievances related to NPS, which have been
discussed in this chapter. Issues relating to OPS and other retirement benefits
have been dealt in Chapter 10.1 and Chapter

10.2.
NPS Background - The Commission notes that the NPS is the culmination of a
series of social security and pension related reform initiatives in India. As in many
other countries, pension reforms in India were driven by the fiscal constraints of
supporting a public pension system and the longer-term problems of an ageing
population. Government of India, in 1998, set up the Committee for Old Age
Social and Income Security (OASIS). The OASIS committee concluded, among
other things, that the Defined Benefit Scheme (DBS), serving the Central
Government retirees, is unaffordable for government and it should be replaced by
a Defined Contribution Scheme (DCS). The Commission notes that the total
pension liability on account of Central Government employees had risen from 0.6
percent of GDP (at constant prices) in 1993-94 to 1.66 percent of GDP (at
constant prices) in 2002-03. Pension expenditure of the Central Government grew
at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 21 percent during the period 1990
to 2001. This was also reflected in the increasing fiscal deficits. Further, in the
DBS, pensions were wage indexed, and thus the outgo on this account would have
increased manifold. The stressed fiscal situation, thus, set the stage for
introduction of the NPS in India. The Bhattacharya Committee Report of the
Seventh CPC 422 Index Report (HLE Group on NPS) (Feb 2002) recommended
that an unfunded Defined Benefit (DB), Pay As You Go (PAYG) scheme or a pure
Defined Contribution (DC) scheme would not be suitable and therefore
recommended a hybrid DB/DC scheme to meet the requirements of central civil
servants.
52
International Experience on Pension Reforms Pension reforms, in recent
times, have been initiated in many countries across the world. The Commission
notes that an aging population, changing social structures, uncertain and
inadequate social security benefits and rising fiscal liabilities have been the
major causes behind pension reforms, especially for a transition from DBS to
DCS.
Introduction of NPS On the basis of various reports, the Central Government
made the decision to place all new recruits into Central Government from
01.01.2004 onwards (excluding Defence Forces) under NPS. NPS is managed by
the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA), which was
initially set up as an interim authority. The PFRDA Act was passed by Parliament
and notified w.e.f. 01.02.2014, bestowing statutory status on the authority. Under
the NPS, employees contribute 10 percent of their monthly salary (basic plus DA)
towards their pension with matching contribution from Central Government. In
respect of the AIS officers working under them, the matching contribution is
made by the State Governments. Three professional Pension Fund Managers
invest the funds under NPS following an asset allocation framework mandated by
government. The Central Record Keeping Agency (CRA) maintains a separate
pension account for each individual employee identified by a unique Permanent
Retirement Account Number (PRAN). Individual employees have been given
online access through the CRA website to view the status of their pension wealth.
Under the NPS, upon superannuation, the individual is required to invest at least
40 percent of pension wealth for purchase of annuity and the remaining up to 60
percent is paid to him as lump sum. The annuity provides for pension for the
lifetime of the employee. Individual subscribers to the NPS are not covered under
the General Provident Fund. Regulations issued by the PFRDA now provide for
partial withdrawals up to 25 percent of the contribution made by the subscriber
to his individual account after at least ten years from the date of joining, up to a
maximum of three times during the tenure of the subscription for certain
specified purposes, before superannuation. The regulations issued by PFRDA
also provide that if the employee dies in service, then at least 80 percent of the
accumulated pension wealth shall be mandatorily utilized for purchase of annuity
and the balance amount would be paid to the nominee(s)/legal heirs.
Report of the Seventh CPC 423 Index Performance of the NPS Over 13 lakh
Central Government subscribers have accumulated pension wealth of over
Rs.24,000 crore by the end of 2013-14. The Compound Annual Growth Rate
(CAGR) of returns on the scheme are tabulated below:- (in percent) Year 2008- 09
2009- 10 2010- 11 2011- 12 2012- 13 2013- 14 2014- 15 CAGR (Central Govt.)
The Commission further notes that all State Governments (with the exception of
Tripura and West Bengal) have switched to NPS on the Central Government
pattern.
Grievances against the NPS- The NPS has now been in effect for over 10 years.
During this period, there has been perceptible progress in putting together the
architecture and providing information to subscribers. Major concerns, however,
remain. Broadly, these are as under: i. The larger federations and staff
53
associations advocated scrapping the NPS on the ground that it discriminates
between two sets of government employees. ii. Individuals covered under NPS
have pleaded for reverting to the OPS on the grounds of uncertainty regarding the
actual value of their future pension in the face of market related risks. iii.
Individuals have pointed out that under NPS, the effective salary becomes less
since the employee has to mandatorily contribute 10 percent of pay towards the
pension fund. iv. Individuals have stated that grievance redressal facility is not
effective and consultation with stakeholders has been non-existent. This
communication gap has generated insecurity in the minds of stakeholders
including staff and Group 'A' officers of Central Government as well as All India
Service Officers. v. Associations have complained that Family Pension after the
death of the employee is not ensured in the NPS. Moreover, if an employee dies at
an early age, the family would suffer since annuity from the contribution would be
grossly inadequate. vi. Individuals have complained that NPS subscribers have no
recourse to GPF for their savings. Their personal savings (10% of salary) are
considered part of a larger corpus. It has been pointed out that the right approach
would be to consider only government's contribution and the returns earned on it
as the effective amount available for purchase of annuities. vii. Associations have
pointed out that unlike the facility under GPF, it is not possible to take refundable
advances under NPS, even to meet obligatory social expenditure. This forces
employees towards increased indebtedness as they have to borrow from
elsewhere. viii. Grievances also relate to tax treatment under NPS. While
contributions and accumulations in NPS are exempt, lump sum withdrawals
from NPS at any time are taxable at par with any other income. In addition, there
is a service tax liability on any amount utilised for purchase of annuity. It has been
pointed out that though NPS became effective from 2004, detailed instructions
were issued only in late 2009 and in many cases the credit of contributions began
from 2012. In the case of AIS officers in some States, contributions by the
concerned State Government are yet to be fully made and deployed. The net result
of this has been that contributions for the period 2004-2012 have not been made
in full or have earned simple interest and did not get any market linked returns.
Because of the prevailing confusion, contributions made by some AIS officer have
been returned to them without interest. This will have a huge impact on the
eventual corpus as the benefits of compounding were not available for the first 8 -9
years. x. Individuals, in their presentation before the Commission, stated that
annuities under NPS have no compensation for inflation unlike dearness relief
under OPS. Further, in the case of OPS there is a revision in basic pension itself
after every Pay Commission. This too is not available in respect of annuity of NPS
subscribers. xi. It has been pointed out that government employees are not given
freedom of choice in choosing their fund manager based on performance and
track record as the contributions are divided in a pre-specified ratio among
selected Pension Fund Managers. It has been stated that government employees
have no say in asset allocation of their money. xii. Concerns were raised that the
contribution of 10% + 10% will not be sufficient to create a corpus which provides
reasonable assurance that pension will be 50 percent of the last pay drawn.
54
Analysis of the Issues by the Commission - The Commission has examined these
concerns raised by the stakeholders. The Commission also interacted with
Chairman, PFRDA, and representatives of the Department of Pensions and
Pensioners Welfare (DPPW), Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT),
Department of Expenditure (DoE) and the Department of Financial Services
(DFS). In so far as the future value of pension under NPS is concerned, the
Commission notes that this would depend upon a combination of factors: (i)
performance of the invested fund, which in turn would depend on the asset mix of
the investment and general economic situation of the country, (ii) cost of financial
intermediation, (iii) contribution rates, (iv) period of contribution, (v)
performance of the fund manager and (vi) development of the annuity market.
Analysis of the Asset Mix of Investments - On asset mix of the investment, the
pension funds, the world over, are invested in different assets including
government and corporate bonds, equities, foreign securities etc. government
bonds are generally the lowest risk and lowest yield. Corporate bonds and
equities are higher risk and higher yield. Typically, systems use a mix of at least
two types of assets– Government Bonds and Corporate Bonds/Equities.
As per the investment guidelines stipulated by the government for Central
Government employees under NPS, up to 55 percent can be invested in
government bonds, up to 40 percent in corporate debt securities, up to 15 percent
in equities and up to 5 percent in money market instruments. International
experiences on asset mix vary across countries which have adopted the DCS.
The Commission notes that an innovative approach to investment under the DCS
is the Life Cycle Approach. Under this, the asset mix of each individual changes
based on his/her age. The underlying assumption under this approach is that
younger workers are better able to absorb year on year volatility and therefore can
undertake risk while older workers should reduce risk as they approach
retirement.
A carefully selected asset mix is the sine qua non to higher returns. The
Commission recommends that the investment choices under NPS be calibrated
on a life cycle approach and the choices be offered in a simple manner so that any
lay person can understand and act accordingly. The Commission also
recommends that government, in consultation with PFRDA, come up with
different options for investment mix and provide subscribers a range of options.
Contribution Rates - In DCS, typically, the employees as well as the employers
contribute towards a pension fund. As discussed earlier, the quantum of pension
payouts would also depend upon the contribution rates. Higher the contribution
rate, better would be the pension payouts. The contribution rates for both the
employees and the employers vary across the globe. The Commission has
received suggestions that the government's contribution should be enhanced
from the present 10 percent in aid of a higher payout under the NPS. Associations
and individuals have made presentations before the Commission highlighting
that forecasts suggest that a 10 percent contribution from government will not be
adequate to provide reasonable post retirement financial security in all cases. The
55
Commission, therefore, recommends that this important aspect should be reexamined
in detail by an expert body for making course corrections if
required.
Period of Contribution - The Commission notes that time is of the essence in
building up a reasonable corpus and ensuring that effects of compounding are
significant. It is therefore essential that contributions by individuals and
corresponding contributions by government are made in time, and more
importantly, are deployed without any loss of time. Any delays in this respect,
particularly in the initial years can have a large impact on the eventual corpus.
2004-2011 Entrants 10.3.20 Government employees who have joined service
between 2004 and 2011 have suffered due to delay in finalizing the structure of
the NPS and the issue of detailed instructions. Although they have made regular
contributions, in many cases, this money and/or counterpart contributions were
not deployed in the market. In the case of AIS officers, some states are yet to
release counterpart contributions or pay interest on delayed contributions. This
has led to a situation where the accumulated corpus even after 11 years of service
could be meagre. It is necessary that this situation which arose during the
transition from OPS to NPS be addressed. The Commission therefore
recommends that Central Governments and State Governments should, in a time
bound manner, ensure that all the due contribution along with compounded
interest, where contributions have been delayed, be deposited in the accounts of
the beneficiaries. Advisories should be issued to the State Governments to
deposit amounts, if not already done, in respect of NPS beneficiaries belonging to
All India Services.
Many Association have pointed out that unlike the facility under GPF, it is not
possible to make withdrawals under NPS, even to meet obligatory social
expenditure. This forces employees towards increased indebtedness as they have
to borrow from elsewhere.
The Commission notes that under the NPS Tier-I account, a subscriber is
permitted to make partial withdrawal of twenty five percent of the contributions
made to his/her individual pension account for certain specified purposes. Such
withdrawals are permitted a maximum of three times during the entire tenure of
subscription and a period of at least five years should have elapsed between two
such withdrawals.
The Commission further notes that there exists a voluntary Tier-II account. Under
this account, a subscriber can, at any time, withdraw the accumulated wealth
either in full or part and there is no limit on such withdrawals provided the
account has sufficient balance of accumulated pension wealth to cover the
amount being withdrawn. However, the Tier-II account is yet to be made
operational. The Commission therefore recommends that PFRDA should take
steps to make the Tier-II accounts operational as early as possible to enable the
NPS subscribers the facility of withdrawals from their accounts in case of
requirement.
56
Transparency under NPS- Many associations and individuals have complained
that the information relating to the NPS is inadequate, resulting in high degree of
uncertainty in the minds of contributors about post-retirement benefits. The
Commission noted that PFRDA sends a communication to every participant each
month with the current pension wealth and the latest contribution that has been
credited. The Commission recommends that focused efforts be made to capture
email addresses and mobile numbers of subscribers so that seamless
communication is ensured for all subscribers. The Commission recommends
that consultation with stakeholders should also be held periodically in different
parts of the country.
The Commission notes that no department of Government of India is taking
ownership of the NPS. The Commission recommends that a Committee
consisting of Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Secretary, Department
of Pensions and Pensioners Welfare and Secretary, Department of Administrative
Reforms and Public Grievances may be constituted to review the progress of
implementation of NPS. The Commission also recommends that steps should be
taken for establishment of an Ombudsman for redressing individual grievances
relating to NPS.
Tax Treatment under the NPS - NPS is under the Exempt–Exempt - Tax (EET)
regime while the General Provident Fund under the OPS is under
Exempt–Exempt–Exempt (EEE) dispensation. Under the NPS, while the
contributions and the accumulations are tax-exempt, withdrawals are taxable. As
such, this is an inferior tax treatment when compared to other pension
programmes such as General Provident Fund, Contributory Provident Fund,
Employees Provident Fund and Public Provident Fund wherein contributions,
accumulations and withdrawals are tax-exempt. The Commission feels that tax
neutrality should be ensured across various avenues for long term savings for
post retirement incomes so that the employees covered by NPS are not at a
disadvantage. The Commission therefore recommends that withdrawals under
the NPS should be tax-exempt to place NPS at par with other pension schemes.
The Commission also recommends that the service tax levied at the time of
annuity purchase by NPS subscribers should be exempted.
Issue of Family Pension In Case Of Death of the Subscriber Another complaint
received by the Commission from staff associations and individuals is that Family
Pension after the death of the employee is not ensured in the NPS. The
Commission notes that the government had provisionally extended benefits
under the Central Civil Service (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, Family
Pension/Extraordinary Family Pension/Liberalised Pensionary Award to
government servants appointed on or after 01.01.2004.
Rules regulating these benefits have now been notified by the PFRDA. PFRDA
regulations provide for an exit option from NPS in case of premature death of the
subscriber by availing of additional relief from government, in which case the
entire accumulated pension wealth inclusive of subscriber's contribution would
be transferred to government. The Commission recommends notification of a
scheme by government for provision of additional relief in such cases consequent
to exit from NPS.
57
Framing of Rules and Regulations - The Commission notes that rules and
regulating relating to NPS are being framed and notified by PFRDA from time to
time. Associations and individual officers have raised the issue of the need for
greater involvement of stakeholders in finalizing these regulations The
Commission recommends that government encourage the PFRDA to set up a
strong consultative mechanism involving the DPPW, DoPT, DFS and some
associations of employees for a review of regulations and for finalizing future
regulations to bring clarity and remove uncertainty relating to NPS. The
Commission also recommends that draft regulations should be widely publicized
to enable subscribers to respond to any proposed changes, as normally done by
other regulatory authorities.
So there is a need to go back to the old scheme or convert NPS into an assured
pension scheme.
If the pension contribution is Rs1000 per month for 20 years the accumulated
interest and Principal at 12% will be Rs1000000 and the Bank will be able to pay
Rs10000 per month as Pension at 12% Interest. In fact banks had a Perenial
Pension Plan in which this was provided. When most of the loan schemes fetch
more than 12% this is very much feasible. Each Bank can maintain the fund
themselves and lend it for loans with Interest rate of 12% or above and will be able
to pay an assured pension. Instead of allowing the funds to be invested in
markets, Banks should be allowed to manage them and the Banks should pay
50% of the last drawn pay as pension. This is very much feasible.

GRATUITY:
The Gratuity should be paid at the rate of one month salary and allowances
without any ceiling. The gratuity should be completely exempt from payment of
income tax. The calculation of gratuity should be changed as we move over to 5
day week.
There is an anomaly between SBI and other Banks. Even within SBI Group, the
associate Banks are covered under the service gratuity whereas SBI is covered
under Act gratuity. We demand that all officers and employees be covered under
the service Gratuity.

PROVIDENT FUND:
Based on the principles of retirement benefits which allot Provident Fund,
Gratuity and Pension for different purposes, the Provident Fund should be at the
rate of 12% of the total salary and allowances. The Provident Fund should be
payable to all employees.
ENCASHMENT OF LEAVE:
Encashment of entire leave at credit should also be permitted on resignation,
removal and compulsory retirement. Now, half permitted on resignation & full on
compulsory retirement.
The existing ceiling on encashment of leave should be removed at the time of
resignation / superannuation as directed by the Court judgement. The entire
58
amount should be exempted from income tax as in the case of the Central
Government Employees.
Encashment of PL should be allowed without any ceiling.

MEDICAL BENEFIT SCHEME:
A comprehensive Medical Scheme for pensioners/ retirees should be framed and
introduced in all the banks as available now in the case of executive directors and
CMDs of the Banks, and the medical insurance scheme is to be reversed.

WELFARE ACTIVITIES:
A separate allocation of funds for improvements to welfare of the pensioners
should be made every year. The facilities like Holiday Home, clinics, Transit
House etc., should be made eligible for pensioners also.
Present ceiling of 3 % of net profit to be given to welfare activities should be raised
to 5 % of operating profit to be given to welfare activities.
Suitable life cover should be taken for normal as well as accidental death of
employees.

LFC/ HTC FACILITY:
LFC / HTC Facility should be extended to the retirees also at par with serving
employees or at least once in 5 years.

NEWS PAPER:
News paper and fitness allowance can be provided to the pensioners.

2 comments:

It is high time for all the big unions to come out with a comprehensive formula to bring the bank employees at par with the Central government employees.There should also be automatic revision of all pensions whenever the new settlement takes place. All the bank unions must fight for a reasonable pension for the bank employees as available to all the Central and state government pensioners.Can they rise to the occasion and do something now ??

All bank pensioners should come under o ne roof irrespective of cadre and shunning away affiliations. An apolitical outfit with a few leaders and executive committee should stake our claim for revision of pension for all pensioners, which is the core issue. For this the leaders in different pension unions should give away their position and work under a single unit of leadership. Then only we can expect anything from Govt or management.